creativesoul

So counterfactuals are existentially contingent upon language.

Pots and kettles... What makes a counterfactual true?

Good business men keep their word.

:-O It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough to afford multi-million dollar financial losses. It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough t...

Sigh... One can lack intelligence and be wealthy. One can lack wealth and be intelligent. Trump is proof of that. Smart business men do not go bankrup...

I don't argue by virtue of googling til I find someone I agree with to make my argument for me.

Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted.

I saw no proof that Trump didn't believe himself, but I didn't really give it due attention. Too many obviously not proven claims to want to further c...

Hey Jeep! Interesting. Thanks for the reply, and the bit I mistakenly attributed to Banno. I have my own thought/belief about Trump, and presuming the...

Neither. Yup. Yup. Nope. Perhaps they arise simultaneously. I do not think that that question leads to greater understanding. Better to focus attentio...

So, John, there's much to consider here. Specifically, there's much to consider regarding the differences between our respective methodological approa...

Irrelevant. Counterfactuals pose no problem for my position. I've accounted for them.. without issue, even if not false by their own definition. You r...

Sorry Banno. Didn't see that reply. At best, the US govt. is in a very sad state. Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not co...

Counterfactuals aren't true because they cannot possibly be so... by definition. Statements about past events can be. Statements about future events c...

I can tell you what it would take in order for it to be true. Things would have to be different than they are. They're not. Therefore, it's not.

What makes it true?

There is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. The latter requires metacognition. The former ...

One can watch Harry Potter, and need not be inside of anyone's imagination. Any criterion for existence that requires no imaginative elements is fraug...

We can be mistaken about things that exist as they are prior to our discovery.

Is there any sense of "truth" that is not existentially contingent upon language? Perhaps this be better put a bit differently:Does any sense of "trut...

On my view, if it is a fact of the world that John is married to Jane, then it is a fact of the world that John is married. The truth of the latter is...

You wrote You did not directly address what was written. Directly addressing what was written requires a participant to provide a meaningful, relevant...

Ah yes, I had suspected we work from different conceptual schemes. What you are calling "the actual" requires further reduction into what I call "fact...

Well put for simplicity's sake...

You wrote: Well, there is indeed a couple of problems here. First off, when talking about what there is to truth, the only approach worthy of taking m...

You wrote: By calling things that are contrary to fact "counterfactual" given an appropriate context for my doing so. It's use by me is rare.

Truth is correspondence. Regarding positive assertions, propositions, assertions... That which makes statements of thought/belief true is corresponden...

You wrote: Committing oneself to a conceptual scheme(linguistic framework) is being methodological. Elemental... I'm fine with using here as a means t...

Because part of one's mind - namely all the parts only involved with holding a worldview - are language constructs and as such are entirely adopted. A...

Obviously. One's mind... prior to gaining one's initial worldview... is.

Operatively... yes. Many triggers. All products of physiological sensory perception. Memories. The woven life.

You're offering another a report of your own thought/belief. The ability to do such a thing requires untold numbers of prior correlations. Roughly, it...

I could be much more specific, but it may not be helpful. What part is troublesome?

You wrote: Hey Hanover! I see nothing obviously problematic with this account aside from being perhaps a little too loose. Generally speaking, it make...

You're neglecting to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thinking and thinking about stuff. I suspect that you've also neglected to cons...

You wrote: The above is false, albeit quite popular. All thought consists entirely of mental correlation(there are no imaginable exceptions to the con...

Here's a bit of and on the aforementioned methodology... We first identify what human thought/belief consists in/of. We then separate the elements not...

You wrote: You'll be sorely disappointed. That's not we arrive at them. However, it is how we justify the path.

creative wrote: Terrapin replied: Short answer... Because the dog isn't capable of thinking about stuff. Long answer... Talking about Pavlov's dog's m...

Indeed, why choose to speak in terms which may add nothing more than unnecessary confusion. That said, perhaps that stuff can be discussed some other ...

I was probably mistaken in the earlier expression. There may be no disagreement. Seems we cross-posted, because I actually edited the disagreement out...

I agree with what's overtly expressed above. I agree that we cannot get into the head of a cat. We can know stuff about pre or nonlinguistic thought/b...

We must be careful in such discussions, lest we fall victim to unjustifiable anthropomorphist claims. It does seem apparent that in order to make sens...

Is there any sense of "truth" that is not existentially contingent upon language? Perhaps this be better put a bit differently:Does any sense of "trut...

Terrapin, There is one question I'd like to ask you:What does a mental association between a bell and food consist of on your view?

I disagree that the bell is part of what the association is about for the exact same reason that the association is not about any of the other element...

I'd rather you clear it up for me. It seems that we're in agreement as far as he thread topic is concerned, however I am curious about this distinctio...

Sigh... The bell is a necessary part of the association. Agree?

John wrote: That's the one I'm interested in. Care to set it out?

Is anyone else besides myself still interested in this discussion?